Note that Newton, to substantiate his theory, had to invent something he called absolute time -- time as a permanent unit of measurement, regardless of what happens. But how long a time where nothing happened would last? It is inconceivable. The idea of absolute time contradicts itself. The time that is independent of what happens is the time that is independent of duration; so it's not time at all. Newton also had to invent absolute space, space without things inside; that is, space as pure measure. But if there is nothing within the space, there is also no measure. So, to arrive at a description of the behavior of nature that we consider realistic and within which we live, - - and we live within that Newtonian space-time to the point that whatever contradicts it seems unthinkable to us - -, Newton conceived two ideas that are absolutely self-contradictory. He recognized that these ideas are mere inventions, but he needed them in order to make the measurements. — bcccampello
When Newton says that it is not the stone that moves towards the earth, but the earth that attracts that small piece of matter in the direct ratio of the masses and in the indirect ratio of the square of the distance, you ask yourself: "But what precisely is Earth attracting?" It is a stone. Is a stone nothing? The stone is something, it has its own properties. And if she didn't have them and if she were nothing, the earth would attract her in vain, because she wouldn't come at all. This means that the description of the world that takes place in Newton's mechanics assumes the existence of the various substances of the various beings that are affected by the law of gravity. It does not reason from these substances, but only from the mechanical relationships between them. But in order for mechanical relationships to exist, they must take place between things that exist, and things that exist have substances. — bcccampello
When ancient physics said that the stone has a natural desire to rest in the bosom of the Earth, it said exactly what Galileo will say later: that when an object is not moved by another it remains at rest or in a uniform rectilinear motion. This impulse of rest or uniform rectilinear motion is inherent in the object -- with the proviso that Galileo said that uniform rectilinear motion is only a unit of measure and does not really exist. Aristotle, in ancient physics, said that when an object is not moved by another it remains at rest. Galileo adds in brackets: "or in a uniform rectilinear movement, which does not really exist" - that is, it remains at rest. Now, from the general point of view of the theory of universal gravitation, there is a mysterious force called gravity by which larger matter attracts smaller matter. But from the point of view of another physical law, which is the law of inertia, the impulse to rest is in the object itself. It cannot receive the rest impulse from outside, it can only receive the movement. Although the expression desiderium naturae - -desire of nature -- is a literary expression, it expresses precisely what the law of inertia says. — bcccampello
ts original absurdity, even if it leads to spectacular scientific consequences, will always be an error, an absurdity and always a sin of the spirit. If you remain attentive throughout the development of the study you are doing, attentive to the awareness of the original absurdity, and say: "This is just a game rule. We are going to postulate an absurd thing just to see what happens, and then we'll come back here", and if you do this, everything is fine, but most don't. — bcccampello
I nominate this for consideration as the most ridiculous line ever posted to TPF. — tim wood
Inertia, like gravity, comes from the outside. — Kenosha Kid
I nominate this for consideration as the most ridiculous line ever posted to TPF. — Metaphysician Undercover
I nominate this for consideration as the most ridiculous line ever posted to TPF. — tim wood
This looks awfully categorical to me. Prove it. — tim wood
How, from anyone's perspective, does a belief in God warrant the conclusion - or even the statement - that "God exists," except as an example of a stupid ignorance speaking? What indeed does perspective have to do with existence? — tim wood
And zero of this has anything to do with existence whatsoever. — tim wood
It is wrong to attribute inertia to the field rather than to the particle. And, the Standard Model indicates that the causal relationship between the field and the particle is unknown. So it is more ridiculous to claim that the particle's inertia comes from outside the particle (what is known to be wrong), than it is to claim that it comes from the will of God (what may or may not be wrong). — Metaphysician Undercover
There are numerous reasons to dismiss this theory as ridiculous, beginning with the inability to establish a necessary relationship between gravity and mass, as required by observation. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is known as the incompatibility between general relativity (by which gravity is explained) and the Standard Model (by which mass is explained). — Metaphysician Undercover
It's clear that either you do not understand some words, or you ignore their meaning. I did not ask for an explanation. You made a claim; I said, "Prove it." See, "proof" "explanation," don't look the same, don't sound the same, don't mean the same, are different. But I am quite sure you will give any notion of proof the widest possible berth. — tim wood
While much progress has been made in formulating QFT in a GR framework, pragmatically the calculations are intractable and the expansions plagued with infinities, which is a problem for us, not nature. Our technological inability to calculate exact solutions to difficult equations should not be confused with the universe's inability to cope with the same equations. Both theories have been experimentally verified countless times to high precision. The Universe appears quite happy with both. — Kenosha Kid
Newton says that it is not the stone that moves: it is moved from outside by a force he calls gravitation. In saying that matter attracts matter in the direct ratio of the masses and in the inverse ratio of the square of the distances, he is saying that the larger matter attracts the smaller matter. S — bcccampello
When Newton says that it is not the stone that moves towards the earth, but the earth that attracts that small piece of matter in the direct ratio of the masses and in the indirect ratio of the square of the distance, you ask yourself: "But what precisely is Earth attracting?" — bcccampello
But how long a time where nothing happened would last? — bcccampello
The idea of absolute time contradicts itself. — bcccampello
Newton also had to invent absolute space, space without things inside; that is, space as pure measure. But if there is nothing within the space, there is also no measure. — bcccampello
But how long are they repeated? — bcccampello
bcccampello — bcccampello
Interesting question. But only applicable to a world where nothing happens. Is our world that, or is our world in constant change and motion? You decide whether your objection is valid or not in OUR world. — god must be atheist
hat leaves belief, which people - reasonably intelligent, reasonably educated people, anyway - understand is not in-itself a statement of any fact, but a statement of belief, and those same people have usually no too much trouble in distinguishing between the two. They express themselves in the "We believe..," and never as "God exists." — tim wood
Again, this is the cultural relativism at play. It only appears as "an error" to you, because you do not believe in God. If you believed in God, it would appear as the correct description. — Metaphysician Undercover
So it really does make sense to ask how long would a time when nothing happens last, because there clearly is a short period of time when nothing happens, and it would be helpful to know exactly how long that period of time is. — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.